Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)

[SFBadger96]

Another key advantage our military has is training. Our training budgets are much larger than other countries. As a result, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are substantially better at their jobs than most of our threat-countries (if not all). I forget the exact numbers, but, for example, USAF fighter pilots in Korea fly hundreds of hours per year--more in a month than North Korean pilots fly in a year. It's not just the number of personnel, it's the quality.

Even before the "Global War On Terror," our services spent a lot of time in high-quality training environments. Now, as the GWOT winds down, the services are full of experienced professionals who know how to fight. This isn't something we would aspire to (the 18-year wartime footing), but it has had the benefit of further honing a professional fighting force. Part of knowing how to fight, is knowing how to supply and how to communicate. These are things that our military is currently very good at. It's one of the reasons that the military supply experts are, as I understand it, involved in helping with the COVID-19 distribution of medical resources.

[847badgerfan]

You have an interesting take, SF.

I think it's pretty clear that the US needs to bring manufacturing home - particularly in the medical supply and pharma sectors.

I don't really care if you want to buy Khaki pants made elsewhere, but the above? Bring it home.

[rolltidefan]

Because of the taxpayer's concern for budgets, one of the ways in which government is inefficient is the requirement (in most cases) that the government buys from the low bidder. This is true in DOD, but also throughout most of government. I was on the sidelines for a massive infrastructure project where one bidder had completed Phase I, below budget and ahead of schedule, with a better-than-expected safety record. Nonetheless, that bidder lost Phase II despite submitted a bid less than 1% higher than the winning bidder. That is an example of where the desire for low government spending almost certainly ended up costing the government more. Few businesses would ever make that decision. Anyway, I digress (a little).

this is something i run into quite a bit as an auditor and that's more likely just poor understanding of procurement rules and regs. lowest bidder is typically a general rule, but there are almost always exceptions, and it's generally just explaining a legitimate reason for why you didn't use the lowest bidder. and there are a myriad of legit reasons that could be (your example being a great one). someone blindly using the lowest bidder is either incompetent, lazy, or too scared to make an argument. maybe all 3.

[SFBadger96]

I know there are exceptions to that rule, but the case I'm talking about was a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project where the second-to-low bidder had completed Phase I with a stellar record, but lost because it wasn't the low bidder for phase II (by a tiny margin). Again, something that wouldn't happen in the commercial world. As noted above, I believe the government is actually much better at spending the taxpayer's money than most people, but this low-cost mentality can make it worse, not better.

Back to localizing manufacturing and food production, it would have a dramatic impact on the corporate model that generates a massive portion of wealth/profit in this country. You're talking about a fundamentally different economic system largely driven by government regulations.

[847badgerfan]

I see a whole lot of the bidding process for heavy construction work. Some of it is laughable, unless "we" are allowed to be part of the process (to save the agency's ass).

It is shocking to me how agencies can't seem to compare apples to apples on this things, only to go low-bid. And then the low bidder performs crappy, and extras the client to death. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[847badgerfan]

I know there are exceptions to that rule, but the case I'm talking about was a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project where the second-to-low bidder had completed Phase I with a stellar record, but lost because it wasn't the low bidder for phase II (by a tiny margin). Again, something that wouldn't happen in the commercial world. As noted above, I believe the government is actually much better at spending the taxpayer's money than most people, but this low-cost mentality can make it worse, not better.

Back to localizing manufacturing and food production, it would have a dramatic impact on the corporate model that generates a massive portion of wealth/profit in this country. You're talking about a fundamentally different economic system largely driven by government regulations.

I'm not talking about anything but critical items here. 


Germany just put out to bid to its companies to make PPE, pharma and durable medical goods. They are doing this to beef up their national stockpile and avoid having to bed others, or bid against others. I think it's a wide move.

[rolltidefan]

I know there are exceptions to that rule, but the case I'm talking about was a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project where the second-to-low bidder had completed Phase I with a stellar record, but lost because it wasn't the low bidder for phase II (by a tiny margin). Again, something that wouldn't happen in the commercial world. As noted above, I believe the government is actually much better at spending the taxpayer's money than most people, but this low-cost mentality can make it worse, not better.

Back to localizing manufacturing and food production, it would have a dramatic impact on the corporate model that generates a massive portion of wealth/profit in this country. You're talking about a fundamentally different economic system largely driven by government regulations.

that's my point, though. more often than not, that scenario doesn't need to play out. in that specific instance, maybe it did, sometimes the rules are just too confining. but more often than not, the entity would be perfectly within the rules to use the phase 1 bidder again, despite not being the lowest bidder. it's not really mandatory in gov either, as long as there's a legitimate reason. people are just too afraid to challenge it.

[847badgerfan]

that's my point, though. more often than not, that scenario doesn't need to play out. in that specific instance, maybe it did, sometimes the rules are just too confining. but more often than not, the entity would be perfectly within the rules to use the phase 1 bidder again, despite not being the lowest bidder. it's not really mandatory in gov either, as long as there's a legitimate reason. people are just too afraid to challenge it.

For fear of lawsuit, which happens from time-to-time around here.


Language now mostly states "lowest qualified bidder", which adds a little wiggle room. I'm not a fan of low bid, for anything other than floormats or something.

[bayareabadger]

this needs to stop
and the folks that spend less than their budget should be rewarded, not penalized

Two things on this.
1. I've been in a private company version of this, but the reverse. This year's budget is the base for next years, so all savings just bites us in the ass.

2. The key is creating a balance. I had a friend whose boss was chasing a low budget bonus. To do so, he kept four positions open and had everyone else make up for it. That was a poor way to run things.

(There's also the interesting case of Alabama's old laws involving prisoners where a sheriff pockets leftover money from feeding prisoners. Unsurprisingly, this became a breading ground for a cruel sort of fraud)

[MrNubbz]

So road crews got road kill

[OrangeAfroMan]

Oh yeah, we need to start making all of our stuff here. Put people to work in manufacturing and other good fields, after we educate them.

As for a ground war, I often wonder. The US as 1.3 Million in its military.

China: 2.3M
North Korea: 1.2M
Russia: 770K
Iran: 550K
Venezuela: 320K

Those are the main adversaries, I guess. I don't worry too much about the last one. They attacked a defenseless cruise ship with their navy last week and their navy sunk.

Lots of manpower in that group though. I highly doubt they could get it here.

India has 2.3M.

Turkey has the 2nd most (700K) numbers in NATO, by far (France - 200K). Of course, I don't trust Turkey.

Yeah, this is what I was talking about.  I think these numbers are absolutely meaningless.
  Tech > manpower

[GopherRock]

I see a whole lot of the bidding process for heavy construction work. Some of it is laughable, unless "we" are allowed to be part of the process (to save the agency's ass).

It is shocking to me how agencies can't seem to compare apples to apples on this things, only to go low-bid. And then the low bidder performs crappy, and extras the client to death. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Ditto.

Some years ago, a prime contractor had performed so badly on a 2 bridge construction contract that MnDOT canceled the contract for the second bridge. The contract was rebid, and the same contractor was the winner for the same amount of money it would have taken to get the bridge done on the first contract 3 years earlier.

And there's always one subcontractor that's a pain. The project I did my construction rotation on featured one sub that, at one point or another, had gotten all of their operators thrown off the grade for reckless operations. Their MO seemed to be undercut everyone else that was bidding, then try to beat us up on the back end with delay claims and change orders to run in the black. We put together a list of problems we had with them, and by the time I sent it up the line it had 50+ substantial items on it. Unfortunately, it appears that the only way to get disqualified for bidding on state jobs is to be convicted of federal tax fraud.

[MichiFan87]

My $1200 check from the government got deposited today....

[CWSooner]

My guess is that this money is well spent even if some of it is wasted.  Some of any money would be wasted of course.  I read that Headstart is money well spent.

And yes, we'd all prefer a world where parents took the responsibility.

My kids' school system had a large number of AFDF students in it.  They had incorporated decades ago a largely black school district.  Fortunately, they had gobs of money.  I saw quite a few of those underprivileged kids go on and do very well because they had a chance, which they would not have had in the old school district.  I like to focus on them versus the kids who didn't take advantage of that chance.

I have read that Headstart kids are effectively where non-Headstart kids of the same demographics are 3 years after graduating from the program.